What do global warming skeptics not accept?

Question

Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide?

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide levels are rising?

This rise has a connection to the 6000 million tonnes of coal burnt each year?

CO2 can trap warmth and reduce radiation of heat through the atmosphere?

Trapped warmth can change global temperatures?

Answer 1

We do not accept that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1/11,000th of the atmosphere is likely to cause "the planet" to have "a fever."

It's like arguing that because "insulation traps heat and keeps your house warm," blowing in 1/10th of a layer's worth will have a material effect on the temperature inside your home.

There have been other warm periods without a CO2 increase and we can't explain all of them - can't explain the last one in fact.

There have also been CO2-driven warming periods - but they involved increases to a level 12-15 times today's - - not a 27% increase.

Answer 2

I don't accept that the 3% human-part of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is responsible for over 50% of the recent change in the surface temperature of the Earth.

I agree with Fritz Möller that "the theory that climatic variations are affected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable."

Answer 3

OK you stated some accurate facts however there is more to the big picture that you're missing.  The amount of co2 in the air has increased since 1998, however temperatures have not increased proportionally.  Other factors are taking place that we don't understand.

You could not say what the temperature of the climate would be if the levels of co2 doubled, or halved.  You would not even be able to say if the temperatures would even warm or cool or stay the same.  There is no direct relation between co2 and temperatures.

Answer 4

I have trouble accepting a faulty surface-temperature monitoring system.  The equipment is in disrepair and has been encroached upon by human roads....buildings....etc., resulting in 'warmer-than-actual' temperatures being recorded.  This faulty data has been used by climatologists to determine the Earth's temperature trends.....NOT good science!!!

Some well-meaning experts trusted that this data was reliable....it is not.  NOAA's reaction was that they were aware of the issue and have made 'corrections' to the faulty data.......Riiiiight!

Bad data = Bad science!!

Answer 5

They can not accept the fact that the cheapest form of fuel is the most deadliest and destructive to our environment, and our health. They also cannot accept the fact that we are facing another evolution, and that maybe what the ancient tribe of the Maia's will come true. It will, and the world as we may know will not exist after the year 2012, Dec.

Answer 6

We accept all of those things.  Just like we accept that if you spit in the ocean, the sea level rises - just not enough to notice.

The scientific debate is not about whether CO2 can effect temperature - it's about whether it drives temperature, or whether the effect is so small that it's not even measurable.

(edit)  The theory is that as CO2 absorbes 3 frequencies of infrared radiation, once these frequencies are blocked, adding more CO2 has a rapidly diminishing effect.  There is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to completely absorbe these frequencies every 10 metres of transmission.  The effect is already saturated.

The global warming theory is an incomplete theory.  Nobody has filled in the blanks with how it's supposed to generate significant warming.

(edit)  I guess AGW believers don't like physics that doesn't support their beliefs.  Anyway, mearly saying that CO2 causes the temperature to rise doesn't prove that CO2 will cause enough of a temperature rise to be measures.

Answer 7

All of those have a grain of truth in them. The problem is the fact that the computer models the climatologists are using don't even factor in how clouds effect the planet. And most likely don't even have Sun Spot Cycle worked into the modeling software. Not only that this is a new profession, plus they've only been tracking global temperatures for a little over 100 years. That in itself is a drop in the bucket when it comes to how old our planet is. The scientists have also been tweaking the data to fit their paradigms and not allowing the data they do have speak for itself.

Answer 8

I do not accept the co2 is the only force that has caused 20th century warming, with natural forces playing no part.

The rise in co2 alone without any feedback will only cause minor warming over the next 100 years.  That is what you have described.

There is a second part of the theory.  This initial human induced rise in temperatures will be amplified many times over to produce catastrophic warming.  That part of the theory is vary shaky, and I do not accept.

Answer 9

Responsibility.

Their "reasons" are just excuses for the avoidance.

Look at the inaccurate information they happily accept and pass on, like the lies about low increases in CO2 due toe fossil fuels.  Here are some figures on the atmospheric CO2 increase due to fossil fuel burning:

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere."

"The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."

For elevated CO2 not to cause warming, CO2 would have to not be a greenhouse gas, i.e. our understanding of physics would have to be off, extremely unlikely given the hundreds of people who have challenged, tested and developed the theory over the past 100+ years:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

Furthermore, the absolute and relative temperatures of Venus, Mars, and Earth would have to have other explanations.

Fossil fuel burning however is not the only anthropogenic factor causing global warming, it's one major contributing factor.  Other major contributing factors are land use changes (reducing CO2 uptake by forests) and black soot air pollution.

Black Carbon Pollution Emerges as Major Player in Global Warming

Soot from biomass burning, diesel exhaust has 60 percent of the effect of carbon dioxide on warming but mitigation offers immediate benefits

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?re...

Other greenhouses gases such as methane are strong influences as well, making human practices such as raising cattle a contributing factor and possible "tipping points" such as thawing of arctic tundra or undersea frozen methane clathrate deposits a potential issue.

So skeptics have to ignore disbelieve a staggering volume of science, as if their beliefs could make the earth flat.

Answer 10

The earth warms and cools naturally.  Skeptics don't believe that global warming exists as they believe it is a natural process we are going through, and that industry has had no significant effect on it.

Answer 11

We cannot accept one more excuse for humanity to put God out of the picture He is in CONTROL.

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (Matt. 6:34).

Answer 12

I do not accept liberals using scare tactics to try to push their agenda which will result in carbon taxes.

Answer 13

You liberals and the fact you "do't get it" as this is a part of the earth's natural cycle.

Answer 14

The 'spit in the ocean' claim is simply ignorant.  That's a 37% increase over the past 150 years - if you spit in the ocean, you're not going to raise the sea level 37%.

Most deniers accept the basic fact that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels (although some even deny that), but they claim we don't understand how much this increase contributes to global warming.  They might not understand it, but climate scientists do.

Answer 15

My educated guess is that they don't except ANY evidence that would suggest they have to stop or change their business or way of life.

Why do they do this?:

A.  They are stupid

B.  They are greedy

C.  They work, own or support dirty energy industries or companies, like Exxon Mobil and coal companies that have been voraciously spreading lies about global warming for over 20 years!

I am forever perplexed at why anyone would want to voraciously spread such outrageous lies has the potential to literally ruin the earth and all its inhabitants--including the skeptics.  I agree with renowned Scientist James Hansen who recently stated: "in his opinion, oil and coal companies should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

Answer 16

Skeptics:

Skeptics of global warming believe that global warming is not an environmental problem. They think that the recent increase in the earth's temperature is no cause for alarm. And they believe that earth's coastlines and polar ice caps are not in danger of disappearing.  

Skeptics believe that the climate models used to prove global warming and to predict its effects are misrepresented. They point out that according to the models, the last century should have been much worse than it actually was.

Temperature increases occurred before the widespread emission of carbon dioxide in the middle of the 20th century.

Temperature increases are also attributed to the fact that most of the observations are taken in cities or airports where temperatures may be skewed higher.

Explanations:

Since global warming appeared during the last decade as a serious environmental issue, it has been the subject of a lot of debate. Global warming is defined as the warming of the earth by greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere naturally or by mankind. But there are many questions about global warming, from its causes to its full effects.

Many people even question whether or not global warming exists. And if global warming does exist, people question why it exists. But there is one fact that no one has questioned - the surface temperature of the earth has increased 0.45 - 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past century.

Is the increased temperature something we need to worry about? Well, there are two different viewpoints. The believers in global warming think that the increased temperature proves that global warming exists, and that it's a significant problem that should not be taken lightly.  

Skeptics of global warming believe that the increased temperature is a natural phenomenon, and that if global warming does exist, it's not something to be worried about. What makes this debate so interesting is that there is valid scientific data to prove either side.

Global warming has been proven and disproven using computer climate models. Believers in global warming use them to show that in the next century there will be a significant rise in the Earth's temperature, and an increase in the height of sea level. Global warming skeptics suggest that the models are not entirely based on fact, and that they can not be trusted.

There are many arguments for and against the existence of global warming. We'll take a look at some of the arguments for both sides on the following pages, starting with the believers in global warming.